SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the wish-we-were-in-the-one-percent dept.
Due to completely messed up U.S. tax policies, some even got a rebate check. Only small businesses pay taxes. Big companies often pay nothing at all.
Look at a new report from Citizens for Tax Justice ( http://ctj.org/ctjreports/2015/04/fifteen_of_many_reasons_why_we_need_corporate_tax_reform.php#.VSbihhPF8QY ), a Washington, D.C. group. It finds that some of nation's most famous brands have paid remarkably little to the government over the last five years. In fact, many actually enjoyed a negative tax rate: They received a nice rebate check from the U.S. Treasury.
The 15 giants highlighted by CTJ were chosen to represent a wide range of industries among Fortune 500 companies. They include CBS, Mattel, Prudential, and the California utility PG&E. Together, they paid no federal income tax in 2014, despite profits totaling $23 billion. CTJ's point is that these companies are not anomalies, they are examples.
(Score: 2) by Justin Case on Wednesday April 15 2015, @12:47AM
Right. I hate it when a thief takes more from me than the next guy. If you're going to hurt me, at least let me enjoy watching you hurt others too. As long as the abuse is equal, it is fine... with most people.
How about stop taking money by force. It's immoral. Evil. Wrong. And as every predator knows, your prey are going to fight back -- the stronger ones will fight back more effectively.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @01:51AM
Taxation is not theft, dipshit. By living in society and taking advantages of all the benefits it provides, you agree to pay your fair share. Don't like it? Don't want to pay your fair share? Then get the fuck out. Nobody is forcing you to live where roads and underground plumbing exists.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @02:58AM
Let me tell you how society works: You *pay* for the services that you *use*. Pretending that there are "hidden" costs that you need to be charged an arbitrary amount to subsidize is *not* appropriate. If something has a cost to provide then put a price tag on it and I'll pay for it when I use it - otherwise I won't use it. Charging people for things they don't *want* nor *use* and then extorting money from them because they are "part of society" is very much *theft*.
If it's a direct tax to pay for the specific service/product provided that the recipient wants then there's is no theft - it's an exchange.
Taxing some arbitrary percentage for some collection of "services" that the recipient does not use nor want - that's straight up extortion and theft.
(Score: 1) by gargoyle on Wednesday April 15 2015, @08:04AM
So how does that work for defense? Nobody pays anything unless you get invaded, in which case you have to immediately pay to train, arm and supply a standing army while the invasion is ongoing? Then when you beat back that invasion with your completely new army of raw recruits, it's disbanded and you don't pay anything towards the army until the next invasion?
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday April 15 2015, @06:13PM
Back in the day, that was a lot closer to what happened than you probably think. The U.S. had to equip and train an armed forces for WWI because it didn't really have a large standing armed forces. Before then it was militia and stuff?
And after the Revolutionary War (?) they sold off the navy. Of course, that ended up being a problem a few years later, but...
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Wednesday April 15 2015, @08:11AM
Let me tell you how society works: You *pay* for the services that you *use*.
No, that's how you want it to work. Other people think differently. And other people don't think about it at all, because all in all it seems to work pretty well as a system for the majority of people. Would things be better if we paid for everything? Maybe. Maybe not.
If you don't want to pay taxes, live somewhere that doesn't have taxes.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 1) by Fauxlosopher on Wednesday April 15 2015, @08:48AM
... OR just choose to assert your authority as as a free individual and refuse to pay that which you do not owe, such as "tax" in almost all forms.
Things may be different in conquered and subjugated nations, but in the USA under the Constitution, the federal government's authority is a derivative of a single voter's authority. If a single individual has no authority to rob any other individual, neither does government regardless of the term used to describe the robbery.
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Wednesday April 15 2015, @09:18AM
... OR just choose to assert your authority as as a free individual and refuse to pay that which you do not owe, such as "tax" in almost all forms.
You're free to try that. Just as you're free to try asserting your right to break any laws you don't happen to like.
You may not be successful.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 1) by Fauxlosopher on Wednesday April 15 2015, @06:28PM
Agreed, I am able to choose to try to live as a free, self-owning individual. I may be accosted by criminals, and I will need to choose how to respond to such an assault against my person. I may not be successful in following through on my choices.
That the criminals may be lone bandits, members of a large private criminal gang, or costumed members of a government that is exceeding its lawful authority is irrelevant in terms of principles.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Justin Case on Wednesday April 15 2015, @03:02AM
> By living in society and taking advantages of all the benefits it provides, you agree to pay your fair share.
No, I didn't agree.
By reading this comment you agree to post all your bank websites login IDs and passwords.
I guess you think life comes with an End User License Agreement. Don't like it? Don't get born. Right?
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @03:42AM
Then leave. If you don't want to be part of society, nobody is forcing you to remain part of it.
inb4 "I shouldn't have to go anywhere, I'm entitled to mooch off everyone else without having to contribute a thing!"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @04:00AM
Point out to me on this map: where is your society that I may leave it?
A society isn't a physical place; it is an abstract concept.
Many people living physically near you have indeed left your valued society.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday April 15 2015, @06:49AM
I, for one,
welcomewould not want to be a member of a society of Anonymous Cowards, since, first, they are anonymous, and second, they are cowards. Does not bode well for when our socially just tax schedule needs defending with the pointy end of the spear. Just saying.(Score: 2) by Justin Case on Wednesday April 15 2015, @12:04PM
>> No, I didn't agree.
> Then leave
Why don't you leave? You're the one siding with thieves.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by tftp on Wednesday April 15 2015, @03:41AM
By living in society and taking advantages of all the benefits it provides, you agree to pay your fair share. Don't like it? Don't want to pay your fair share? Then get the fuck out.
How would one agree on what share is fair? Do you think that an old, childless couple should pay a local tax that finances schools? Wouldn't it be more fair that only parents pay that tax? The road tax is paid only by drivers; the sales tax is only paid by buyers; the luxury tax is only paid by owners of yachts (unless they are smart enough to avoid paying [huffingtonpost.com].) If the citizen disagrees, how the hell would he get out? No other country is obliged to accept him, and there is no New New World for him to go to. Besides, why do you interpret a large collection of laws as a bundled deal? There are certain things that the society also owes you, like your social security money, and all the public projects that your taxes went into. Aren't you supposed to get the unused portion of your investment into the society back when you emigrate? (This does not happen, of course.)
The GP post is right: you are nothing but a child of a slave, born into life-long slavery as a unit of human cattle. You had no chance to review the terms of the "contract with society." This contract is changing all the time, but still nobody asks *you* to accept or reject this or that particular tax or fee. You are a slave of lawmakers, who are enabled by the silent - and largely ignorant - voters. You cannot pick and choose what social contracts you are willing to accept; you do what your master orders you to do. A herd owner does not discuss anything with his cows. A free man would be able to voluntarily join whatever contracts he likes and to reject whatever other contracts he doesn't like. This would force those contracts to change to become attractive. Today there is no such need, and governments of all levels feel free to burden people with whatever taxes and fees they want, as the taxpayer has no recourse. They can even force you to buy a commercial product, or else IRS comes and kneecaps you... what a racket!
The companies are actually a notch or two above you, because they can emigrate - or simply die a little here and get born anew in a place with better tax laws. They are using these options. You cannot use them - not without relinquishing your US citizenship. The companies have no such problem.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @04:57AM
That's for your representative to determine. However, one's "fair" contribution is determined by their capabilities; we as a species has mostly grown past the idea that anyone who is unable to provide for themselves should just be left to die, but the price for this is that others must contribute a little bit more to compensate, and those who have more than everyone else are more capable of contributing than those with nothing. Everyone who isn't a selfish fuckwad considers this a good thing, and even those selfish fuckwads are glad such things exist when bad luck hits and they end up unemployed, homeless, and/or bankrupt.
No, childless couples should also fund schools because everyone benefits from an educated populace, except for those wishing to exploit them. A populace with a higher overall education will have more opportunities, more entrepreneurs, and better services, which will create even more opportunities and more benefits for future generations.
The specifics of how taxes are handled (collected and spent for everyone's benefit) is something for which the government is required. However, road tax is paid by everyone - the entire interstate system was created for the federal military, in order to move troops and equipment around, however the citizens are the ones who benefit from it most. Anything which benefits everyone, or at least an overwhelming majority like roads and education, should be paid for by everyone. Other than that, taxes should come from those most able to afford them; sales and usage taxes sound good and fair but they unfairly punish the poor because they need literally every cent just to scrape by, while those with plenty of wealth would have no problems continuing to live in luxury even if they lost all of their liquid assets.
You move, duh. There's still plenty of wilderness out there in the world, many untouched forests, plains, mountains, islands, and deserts that are essentially uninhabited. It probably won't even require leaving the country in which you live - just go "off grid" and live in the wilderness.
Society doesn't really owe you anything. Society is based around the idea of a collective, more than just yourself; it provides benefits for everyone, far more than any one person would have alone, but the requirement for that is that everyone pitch in, otherwise the whole thing falls apart. Society is not a business venture, but it is an investment for everyone not just yourself. If you can't handle the idea of people other than yourself benefiting from anything you do, there's a word for that - sociopath. Way back in the day, anyone who refused to contribute was exiled from the village, and back then exile meant death. Its a shame we've grown too large to do that now, because its desperately needed.
That's because you live in a representative democracy. You elect somebody to represent you, your interests, and the interests of your community, and if they fail to do so stop fucking re-electing them. Unfortunately this system has been purchased entirely and reduced to nothing more than a way to funnel money from the poor to the rich, but thats only because idiots not only allowed it to happen but actively pushed the system towards that.
If you don't like the social contracts in an area, you move. Like the idiots upthread say about the completely-bought voting system, "you always have a choice", except in this case you really do - if you are unable to have a say in the creation of the contract (in the US, you don't on the federal level due to the system being broken but you still have a say for local and state), you're free to walk to another town, state, or country until you find one with a social contract that you agree with.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @05:15AM
There are more choices available to a person who doesn't like your "social contract" than those you present.
In the USA, the only authority that any "social contract" can have is that which does not exceed the authority used to create the USA. As the current version of the USA was created via the Philadelphia Convention's production of the US Constitution, and the source of the Convention's authority was delegated to it by the individual voter, the authority of the US fedgov cannot legitimately exceed anything that any random individual can do.
I cannot use my individual authority to justifiably force you to give me money for any purpose whatsoever; neither does the US fedgov have that authority as fedgov authority is a derivative of my own!
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Wednesday April 15 2015, @09:08AM
and the source of the Convention's authority was delegated to it by the individual voter, the authority of the US fedgov cannot legitimately exceed anything that any random individual can do.
I don't see how the latter follows from the former.
Even if it does, an individual could - in a pre-constitution lawless land - do exactly what you say. He could "force" someone to give him money by threatening to imprison him, or hit him, with no legal ramifications. Of course, he'd have no protection from the (non-existent) law if the "client" decided to fight back...
So, there's your delegated authority.
I cannot use my individual authority to justifiably force you to give me money for any purpose whatsoever; neither does the US fedgov have that authority as fedgov authority is a derivative of my own!
You can't use your individual authority to "justifiably" (whatever that means) detain someone for any purpose whatsoever, either, so I guess that means you think no-one should be in prison.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 1) by Fauxlosopher on Wednesday April 15 2015, @06:41PM
I've written about two pages' worth of directly-related material in two journal [soylentnews.org] entries [soylentnews.org]. Such is my attempt to distill the core concepts of individual self-ownership, delegated authority, and the consequences of violating such principles from the perspective of a modern-day USian into a form that can be quickly read and attacked by critics. If the ideas I present fall to scrutiny, that is a good thing, as the ideas I presented were wrong. I will then see if there appears to be any truth remaining in the rubble, and attempt to extract it from the failure and try again to test the idea for weakness.
If instead the ideas are found to be sound after a critical examination, then I challenge the examiners to use them to test their own premises.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @10:02AM
Except for, you know, those powers specifically granted to the US Federal Government by the Constitution. Like taxation (Article I, Section 8).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @05:37PM
...and also official sanction of slavery via the 3/5ths recognition clause. Oh, I'm sorry - were you under the impression that I hold the Constitution out as an example of perfection? I do not, as the Constitution is obviously flawed as you yourself pointed out.
Slavery cannot be justly imposed by the authority of an individual, regardless of whether the chosen vector is skin coloration, economic capacity, or any other manner that claims to exert ownership of one human by another.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by tftp on Wednesday April 15 2015, @05:40PM
That's for your representative to determine.
Nobody asked me if I want anyone else to make these decisions for me. The modern society does not need to send representatives, on horses, to a faraway city to make laws that are mandatory for everyone. This was necessary 200 years ago, but perhaps lawmaking should be moved from backrooms into the public arena? Nobody says that every voter has to be a lawyer, and referendums are perfectly legal. Just issue everyone a certificate on a USB stick, so that they can vote electronically.
However, one's "fair" contribution is determined by their capabilities
I thought that "fair" relates to equality before law. But it appears that some have to share more, percentage-wise, than others, just because some socialists think that a millionaire should live on $30K per year, and all the rest of his income should be confiscated by the government.
No, childless couples should also fund schools because everyone benefits from an educated populace
It amounts to extortion: "Pay for education of Little Johnny, or else he becomes a street robber and robs you." I do not like extortionists, and I believe that Little Johnny should not be my problem. A simple example: a neighbor with eight kids moves in, and then comes to you and tells you to pay him $1000/mo because otherwise his kids will break into your house and steal things. How would you react?
Anything which benefits everyone, or at least an overwhelming majority like roads and education, should be paid for by everyone.
I haven't said anything against financing the police and the fire department because everyone, rich and poor, may need their help with more or less equal probability. (Well, a bit higher for the poor, but that's details.) However even roads do not benefit everyone equally. If you do not own a car and do not drive you pay no DMV fees and you don't pay gas taxes. Your contribution to road construction becomes very small.
those with plenty of wealth would have no problems continuing to live in luxury even if they lost all of their liquid assets.
Yes, I'm sure there are many who would like to spend someone else's money. No doubt. It's much easier to steal someone's money than to earn it.
There's still plenty of wilderness out there in the world, many untouched forests, plains, mountains, islands, and deserts that are essentially uninhabited. It probably won't even require leaving the country in which you live
These places within your own country are under jurisdiction of your country, and you remain bound by its laws. Your only hope is that no government bureaucrat will ever find your cabin in the woods. Because if they do, they will order it destroyed, and you will be arrested for something or the other.
Society doesn't really owe you anything.
Huh? If I buy a Muni bond - which I do sometimes - the society most certainly owes me, and I know exactly what it is. If I pay a local tax and a new FD station is built, I "own" a little piece of it: (tax * num_citizens)/amortization_period. I buy it because I intend to use it. If I leave the country, why shouldn't I be refunded? I'm not going to call fire anymore.
Way back in the day, anyone who refused to contribute was exiled from the village, and back then exile meant death.
You are wearing very strong rose-colored glasses. Old villages had their share of super rich and super poor people. Peasants were famous for their "down to earth" stinginess and rationality. Poorer people used to die from hunger sometimes. Life is far more harsh than you imagine.
if they fail to do so stop fucking re-electing them. Unfortunately this system has been purchased entirely
First of all, I haven't elected anyone, ever. The averaged mass did. It's like a hundred neighbors walk up to your house and tell you how you must spend your money. Wouldn't you want to have a say in that decision?
Secondly, the system indeed had been purchased and exploited long ago. Politicians are elected pretty much forever, and it takes a lot of misdeeds to get kicked out. Elections are openly manipulated by gerrymandering and fraud, with hardly any slap on the wrist to those who was seen carrying stacks of ballots. There is no chain of custody of voting machines and the voting data. But in the end it does not really matter because there are only two halves of one party that have a chance to win - and both candidates have confirmed their obedience to the System before they were nominated. This is exactly the reason why in a modern world referendums (direct democracy, not representative democracy) are practical. It would be also easier to vote from home, during a whole week perhaps, at your convenience, spending as much time as needed comparing and thinking.
you're free to walk to another town, state, or country until you find one with a social contract that you agree with.
You are free to walk to another town or state - and many people do vote with their feet. However this is only a minor relief, as absence of one tax is compensated by other taxes being higher. On average the government gets its pound of flesh, one way or the other. As I already said, you generally cannot move to another country.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday April 15 2015, @11:46AM
You have laid out the reality superbly. I have read more clear-eyed assessments of the situation here in a couple inches of threads on SN than I have seen anywhere else. Why can't *this* group, *these* geeks, who understand how things really stand, *do* something to effect meaningful change?
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday April 15 2015, @06:06PM
Wouldn't it be more fair that only parents pay that tax? The road tax is paid only by drivers;
Lots of other things get shipped over roads. Like food? You don't eat store-bought food, do you? Good, then you don't need to pay road tax.
Or should the farmers, store owners, and transportation people pay all of those road taxes?
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 1) by tftp on Wednesday April 15 2015, @09:04PM
Or should the farmers, store owners, and transportation people pay all of those road taxes?
Not only they should - they do. They do so currently through the licensing and taxation imposed on vehicles and the fuel. Then they include these expenses into the cost of products, and when you buy a loaf of bread you pay your small share of road repair fees.
This is not only the current practice - it is also a logical and fair (IMO) practice. A farmer may choose to not sell anything, sit on his property and only sustain himself off of his land. It's his right - and then he doesn't need to pay for roads that he isn't using. A remote worker, a telecommuter, does not need to pay road tax as he is rarely visiting the office. If the store sets up a teleport and receives products via hyperspace then the store doesn't need to pay the road tax either.
At the same time the property tax that the hermit farmer is forced to pay is not fair because it is not a mutually beneficial contract. The hermit does not benefit from libraries, schools, theaters, stadiums, and whatever else that local governments are so eager to spend the tax money on. He would buy police and fire protection, but that would be at most 10% of his current property tax. He hasn't paid for the library? No library card for him. He hasn't paid for the theater or the stadium? Can't buy tickets; or if he can, they'd cost much more. And so on. Every service, every expense, conveniently bundled into several packages, should be individually offered to taxpayers, with clear explanation what exactly it buys you, and what are your options if you choose to not purchase. For example, if you choose to not buy a "public schools" package *and* have children of school age, then you will be required to provide those children with a private school, or to homeschool them (as the law requires children to be educated.) A few services (fire, animal control) protect not a specific individual, but the community, so they would have to be mandatory. The rest - even the police - is optional.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday April 16 2015, @03:54AM
Congratulations. You can construct an argument relying on a crazy edge case that makes up .1% of the population. If a hermit is the only counterargument you can come up with I guess we've won this debate.
And as previously mentioned above, a better-educated population benefits everyone (except the rulers).
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 1) by tftp on Thursday April 16 2015, @04:16AM
Congratulations. You can construct an argument relying on a crazy edge case that makes up .1% of the population
*/me shrugs his own shoulders* This is a typical proof by counterexample [wikibooks.org]. It does not matter how many farmers are hermits, because all those that are will be injured by this taxation. My point is that it's not necessary to paint the population with a wide brush anymore, as modern computers can easily manage individual subscriptions to government services (that are paid for by yearly contributions that we call taxes.) Those services that do not gather enough subscribers should be abolished altogether, as the vox populi is the final arbiter.